Both. Misinformation is usually not just information that is incorrect, but it's "mis(leading) information", so it's the explicit or implicit accusation of deception.
A prime example for the difference is news media and science. Like if you are the first to cover an event, describe what's happening, what information are available to you and what is likely the cause, effect and consequences of something. Then there's a good chance that you'll end up being wrong. Things might be different than you initially thought they were and so the first draft of the report might end up being incorrect or "in need of correction(s)".
On the other hand there's value in getting information quick. Like it's often better to raise the alarm when you see dark smoke and be glad if it's just a BBQ, then to confirm it to the limits of reasonable doubt and have a school been burned down with all the children inside.
So that's not "misinformation" despite being wrong, that's the problem of "delivering information to the best of your knowledge" in combination with "not enough knowledge/information". You can mitigate that at least on your part by making people aware of your fact base and moderating your level of confidence accordingly. So instead of arguing that "it is" you say that "it could be". Then you're not proclaiming an absolute truth (which you couldn't really do in good faith anyway), but would characterize it as an assumption with a margin of error (which you'd name explicitly). So in that case you'd somewhat rid yourself of the problem of "being wrong", but you'd also lose the aura of "being correct" as well. It is what it is and time will tell what it's worth.
What would be misinformation is if you knew prior to the report that what you're about to say is obsolete, wrong, easy to be misinterpreted or even intentionally framed information. Then it's not just being wrong, the very purpose of it is to broadcast wrong information and to encourage/disencourage behavior or confidence in behavior that is/are not warranted by the facts.
And here it gets tricky because while it's not impossible to proof misinformation objectively. Like idk you can have video footage of Donald Trump proudly claiming the things that he only shortly after that claims never to have heard of. Or idk the CIA having reports prior to the claim of WMDs that state there's no intel on the existence of WMDs. So you can have high confidence that these people or institutions were lying and spreading misinformation at the time. However at the same time, it's also a subjective actions, like "misinformation" is not wrong information it's the intent to spread wrong information. So you can always argue that it's not a bad faith action but just being ignorant of the facts, bad at one's job, forgetful, just not very bright and whatever other reason would come to mind why you couldn't have known what you already know at the time.
So it's rather difficult to prove, to the last consequence, that someone is spreading deliberate misinformation.
That being said you can also look at the effect of information and see whether it IS misinforming people. So even without the malicious intent you can see the damage. So you can also act upon that and reevaluate the factfulness, show alternatives, expose framing and biases or downright mark it as false if there's sufficient evidence for that. And that can be done with a little more objectivity.
Like it's worth noting that absolute truths and perfect objectivity are likely unattainable, but that doesn't mean that you can't see obvious bullshit for what it is. I mean as said it's not just about being wrong, unjustified confidence given the facts can already count as misinformation.
Also the government usually neither controls nor spreads information. There are many channels of communication and distribution, from peer-to-peer discussions to broadcasting and usually the government is the topic of broadcasting not the source.